Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Rr6]

The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as and individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

I feel, that, Ive given unifying inclusiveness to each every particle Universe---except perhaps for gravity and dark energy --- of via my wholistically comprehensive, vectorial torus ideas/concepts as great tubes ergo as cojoined with other great tubes in specific patterns, that, we find with conceptual axis spinning of some fundamental polyhedra of Universe.

These polyhedra when conceptually spun on their edges, faces and vertexes, derive a finite set of 87 primary great circles of Universe ergo 87 primary great toroidal tubes of Universe, when considering the 1D great circle as a 3D great tube.

Here again is the simple bisection of a torus--- via texticons ---that show;

positive shaped gravity,

observed time as frequency ^v or \/\/\/, and.

negative shaped dark energy.

( > ^v < )( > ^v < )


Think of our finite, occupied space Universe, as being composed of only frequency \/\/\ and geodesic arcs ( )( ).

For simplicity purposes think of this frequencies and arcs being static and likened to a shape of slinky like toys from the 60's. May they still make slinky toys, I dunno. Here is link to them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slinky+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

So form the slinky into a torus ie bring the two ends of slinky tube-like structure around so they meet each other. You older folks get a kid to show you how that is done.

So now we have these slinky-like toroidal shapes, however, they are only the spiral arcs, and not the inversions from those spiral surfaces of gravity and dark energy as the sine-wave frequencies inside the tube as the body of the tube. So the spiral surface arcs actually cease on regular base and go on inward trajectories, from gravity surface and dark energy surface.

Now perhaps some of you can see how we can take two of these conceptuallized slinky-shape tori, and mesh them together in the spaces betweeen the arcs, and the inversions. If we have real slinky-like toys of these great tubes, then of course it would not be easy to mesh two or more together without getting them entangled and interfering mess.

Anyway that is the basics for what I believe is a wholistic scenario unifying each and every particle of our finite, occupied space Universe.

If were too actually have large slinky-like toys we can envision how there could be large spaces so that we could fit them together without too much interference i.e. even at the ultra-micro scales of existence, that, I envision this is taking place, large and small is still relative to scale.

With a good graphics programmer we could show these great tubes in great circle patterns and none would have to be touching another. Of course if none ever touch another can there exist a Unified Universe.

This gets into deeper concepts. First we have to start a clear vision of what it is we want envision. Then we can philosophize and what is what, why when etc.......imho

r6

[Steve3007]

Greta:

So an increasing number have the social skills to bring science to the people. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a personal favourite for his balanced views. He is an excellent advocate for the scientific method IMO.

I'd never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson. I'll have a look.

My criticisms of science popularizers was a joke really though. I think anything that attempts to engage people in scientific discovery and help to destroy this strange myth that science is about accepting unquestioningly the word of authorities has to be a good thing, because of course that is precisely the opposite of what science is. Brian Cox may sometimes be irritating but he's not doing too bad a job. He's about my age and so has some of the same influences. I remember in the first episode of one of those popular-physics TV shows he held up his battered copy of "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. The cover of the book is black. Bible-black. I felt like it would be funny to oblige those who think science is a religion by holding up my own copy of that book and testifying. It just needed Brian Cox to shout out "Can I get a witness!?!?".

[Sy Borg]

@Steve3007

As it turns out, Neil deGrasse Tyson did an updated remake of Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

You'd surely get a laugh imagining the faces of Ormond and others who speak of the "science clergy" as they watched Neil walking out of the CGI nebula - hands held out as though administering a blessing, announcing reverently, 'We are made of star stuff". It gave me a chuckle :) Of course, we could also say that we were made of dirt and water.

That's not to deride the significance of atoms required for biological life forming in the most extreme possible environments, utterly hostile to biological life. Then again, the existence of stars themselves is extraordinary. Stars and black holes are the most intense and powerful parts of reality, existing on the edge of the reality we know.

But I still laughed when I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96JjYKJWY9E. He also has an interesting chat show called "Startalk", no doubt watchable online.

Perhaps we secularists tend to take our clergy a little less seriously than theists take theirs, at least in some cultures and subcultures? Secularists take the phenomena seriously but our "clergy" must maintain rigour. It's a rigidity in methods as opposed to rigidity of behaviour and values. Of course there are the "heretics" like string theorists, who eschew the "scientific method" in favour of mathematical models (being rather more accessible than Planck scale particle accelerators the size of Neptune's orbit). Yet all remain aware of how black holes were predicted via math. All are aware of the problematic absence of time's arrow in the models. Faith in the scientific method is shaky - as it should be.

In a connected world just one wacky comment can burden a scientist for a lifetime. One wacky comment from many religious clergy is just one of many (aside from Bishop Spong and a few others). I take Stephen Hawking less seriously now than I once did after some of his rash statements and clangers, eg. aliens. A brilliant specialist but seemingly an unreliable generalist. What I like about Tyson, Cox and Dawkins is they don't overstretch and are reliable (unless you ask EO Wilson about the latter).

I personally think that rigour and reliability are critical to establish reliable baseline knowledge. This is needed so we armchair thinkers can speculate with abandon, secure in at least our ideas' foundations :)

[Steve3007]

Greta:

As it turns out, Neil deGrasse Tyson did an updated remake of Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

Really? I'll look it up. Carl Sagan's Cosmos looks pretty cheesy now, with all those shots of him flying around the universe in his dandilion-seed-shaped spaceship with a constant look of awe on his face. But it was great at the time.

But I still laughed when I saw this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96JjYKJWY9E. He also has an interesting chat show called "Startalk", no doubt watchable online.

That is great. He does look very much like a televangelist. I expected a phone number to pop up with a message saying "phone now to donate".

Perhaps we secularists tend to take our clergy a little less seriously than theists take theirs, at least in some cultures and subcultures? Secularists take the phenomena seriously but our "clergy" must maintain rigour. It's a rigidity in methods as opposed to rigidity of behaviour and values.

I'm always wary of seeing myself as a member of a club, or of applying a group label, because of the dangers of group-think. There's the danger that a sense of loyalty to the club, or the need to belong to a team, promotes an us-and-them attitude and reduces the likelihood of self-criticism. I guess that's ironic when the club in question is founded on the idea that scepticism of all ideas, including one's own, is essential.

Of course there are the "heretics" like string theorists, who eschew the "scientific method" in favour of mathematical models (being rather more accessible than Planck scale particle accelerators the size of Neptune's orbit). Yet all remain aware of how black holes were predicted via math. All are aware of the problematic absence of time's arrow in the models. Faith in the scientific method is shaky - as it should be.

Although maybe even in the case of such things as string theory there is a recognition that ultimately the theory should be tested by experience. If the theory never does manage to pop out a prediction that can be tested with something less than a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, perhaps it will finally die. I guess that will be the test of its proponents commitment to finding patterns in Nature, and not just patterns in mathematics.

[Sy Borg]

Really? I'll look it up. Carl Sagan's Cosmos looks pretty cheesy now, with all those shots of him flying around the universe in his dandilion-seed-shaped spaceship with a constant look of awe on his face.

Neil is the same. Sagan helped NDGT out as a boy and he caught The Awe

That is great. He does look very much like a televangelist. I expected a phone number to pop up with a message saying "phone now to donate".

Steve:

I'm always wary of seeing myself as a member of a club, or of applying a group label, because of the dangers of group-think. There's the danger that a sense of loyalty to the club, or the need to belong to a team, promotes an us-and-them attitude and reduces the likelihood of self-criticism. I guess that's ironic when the club in question is founded on the idea that scepticism of all ideas, including one's own, is essential.

What if the statement was rephrased as:

Perhaps secularists tend to take their clergy a little less seriously than theists take theirs, at least in some cultures and subcultures? Secularists take the phenomena seriously but their "clergy" must maintain rigour. It's a rigidity in methods as opposed to rigidity of behaviour and values.

Steve:

Although maybe even in the case of such things as string theory there is a recognition that ultimately the theory should be tested by experience. If the theory never does manage to pop out a prediction that can be tested with something less than a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, perhaps it will finally die. I guess that will be the test of its proponents commitment to finding patterns in Nature, and not just patterns in mathematics.

String theory ideally "should be tested with experience", but if that requires a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, that's an issue if we hope to move forward. As we search for ever more oblique entities implied by the already-oblique entities that we've found there must surely come a time when the scientific method runs up against fundamental physical logistical problems that preclude progress.

[Atreyu]

String theory ideally "should be tested with experience", but if that requires a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, that's an issue if we hope to move forward. As we search for ever more oblique entities implied by the already-oblique entities that we've found there must surely come a time when the scientific method runs up against fundamental physical logistical problems that preclude progress.

Science has already done that. That is why string theory exists in the first place....

[Rr6]

Code: Select all

Rr6---The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as an individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

Tube Inversions.jpg (30.92 KiB) Viewed 2287 times

https://www.google.com/search?q=slinky+ ... 8&oe=utf-8

So now we have these slinky-like toroidal shapes, however, they are only the spiral surface arcs of gravity and dark energy.

Here above I show the radial inversions V as observed time, from the spiral surfaces of gravity and dark energy as the sine-wave frequencies inside the tube as the body of the tube. So the spiral surface arcs actually cease on regular base and go on inward trajectories, from gravity surface and dark energy surface.

However, even tho my 3, 6, 9 numerical patter defines a sine-wave-like topological frequency, there exist a key differrence in this sine-wave is created vs what classically think of a way that any particles sine-wave-frequency is created.

The sine-wave-- our observed time/reality ---ergo any particle of Universe--- except for maybe gravity and dark energy ---is created from two diametric opposite places.

Gravity > < dark energy

r6

[Steve3007]

Greta:

String theory ideally "should be tested with experience", but if that requires a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, that's an issue if we hope to move forward. As we search for ever more oblique entities implied by the already-oblique entities that we've found there must surely come a time when the scientific method runs up against fundamental physical logistical problems that preclude progress.

Yes, we've discussed this before but it's an interesting one: the issue of theoretical models in physics that are untestable in practice. In considering whether any model is testable or untestable I think we have to keep in mind that the test can be indirect. If, for the sake of argument, we have a theory that diverse physical models like General Relativity and the Standard Model can be unified at extremely high energies which cannot be directly achieved in any Earth-bound particle accelerator, we might conclude that the idea is untestable. But if predictions cascade down from it that can be tested, even though they may only very indirectly follow from it, they arguably form part of the verifying evidence for the theory.

Take, for example, any part of relatively modern physics that appears, on the face of it, to deal with physical situations that are far removed from our direct experience. We still do verify such theories, daily, with our everday experiences. There are plenty of everyday phenomena that can only be understood by invoking Quantum Mechanics, for example. The workings of this computer is one of them.

[Mgrinder]

Unification of multiple separate laws into single, simpler overarching laws has been a major driver in physics for some time. The realization that electricity and magnetism are the same phenomenon (electromagnetism) seen from different reference frames was a classical example of this about 150 years ago.

For a long time now, one of the central issues (if not the central issue) in physics has been the attempt to unify gravity with everything else.

The "Standard Model of Particle Physics" unifies the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force and electromagnetism into a cohesive whole.

Unfortunately it doesn't. Physicists have yet to come up with a way to unify the strong and electroweak forces. A few years back, there were very promising theories that looked great. Very elegant stuff, apparently. They predicted proton decay, so experimentalists tried to find proton decay. They found none. Theorists still have a hard time believing such a theory was wrong, but it was (at least that's what Lee Smolin says he says when he talks to other theorists).

SO they're still looking for the unification of the strong force with the electroweak...

It encompasses Quantum Physics and the Special Theory of Relativity into a system from which all other currently known physics except the General Theory of Relativity can be derived. From it can be derived, as special cases, such things as the classical theories of electromagnetism embodied by Maxwell's Equations or the classical theories of mechanics, embodied by Newton's laws.

The Standard Model (like physics in general) is closely tied to the concept of symmetry, partly because symmetry is related to simplicity. The more symmetries there are in a physical system the simpler it is to describe and the wider its applicability. At very high energies (i.e. particles travelling at very high speeds) the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are unified. But gravity has not been unified with them yet.

It is theorized that the ultra-high energies found in the very, very early stages of the Big Bang might be sufficient to unify all of the forces, including gravity. It is theorized that in that very early universe there was a symmetry that was "broken" as it expanded and cooled.

But what if it turns out that this isn't true? What if, no matter how high the energies involved, there is always some asymmetry and lack of simplicity which is fundamental to the laws of physics? This appears to go against some of our deepest instincts as to how the Universe "ought" to turn out to operate. The belief in the idea of beauty, order and simplicity beneath the complexity and chaos appears to be a deep part of our nature. But it is at the heart of the scientific method that we must follow where observed reality leads us regardless of what our instincts or aesthetic needs tell us.

If it leads us to somewhere that we consider ugly and unsatisfying then we must follow, right?

That's what scientists do. If your elegant simple theory doesn't agree with reality, then you go back to the drawing board. unification of the strong force is a case in point. I'm not sure what you're asking. This is what scientists do, isn't it? What's the philosophical question here?

[Sy Borg]

Greta:

String theory ideally "should be tested with experience", but if that requires a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, that's an issue if we hope to move forward. As we search for ever more oblique entities implied by the already-oblique entities that we've found there must surely come a time when the scientific method runs up against fundamental physical logistical problems that preclude progress.

Yes, we've discussed this before but it's an interesting one: the issue of theoretical models in physics that are untestable in practice. In considering whether any model is testable or untestable I think we have to keep in mind that the test can be indirect. If, for the sake of argument, we have a theory that diverse physical models like General Relativity and the Standard Model can be unified at extremely high energies which cannot be directly achieved in any Earth-bound particle accelerator, we might conclude that the idea is untestable. But if predictions cascade down from it that can be tested, even though they may only very indirectly follow from it, they arguably form part of the verifying evidence for the theory.

Take, for example, any part of relatively modern physics that appears, on the face of it, to deal with physical situations that are far removed from our direct experience. We still do verify such theories, daily, with our everyday experiences. There are plenty of everyday phenomena that can only be understood by invoking Quantum Mechanics, for example. The workings of this computer is one of them.

I look forward to those indirect tests. I imagine it's a matter of chipping away at the problem until someone has a brainstorm.

What did you make of the more recent LHC findings where no evidence of supersymmetry was found? Some claim that it's all over for string theory and others claim that the LHC needs more power. That would seemingly look good for proponents of loop quantum gravity although I understand that that theory is less mathematically coherent than string theory, running into relativity problems when scaled up to large objects.

[Rr6]

Found this slinky physics gem on the net. Very cool....

http://gizmodo.com/5843884/when-you-dro ... like-magic

r6

Code: Select all

Rr6---The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as an individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slinky+ ... 8&oe=utf-8
So now we have these slinky-like toroidal shapes, however, they are only the spiral surface arcs of gravity and dark energy.
However, even tho my 3, 6, 9 numerical patter defines a sine-wave-like topological frequency, there exist a key differrence in this sine-wave is created vs what classically think of a way that any particles sine-wave-frequency is created.
The sine-wave-- our observed time/reality ---ergo any particle of Universe--- except for maybe gravity and dark energy ---is created from two diametric opposite places.
Gravity > < dark energy

r6

[Aristocles]

Found this slinky physics gem on the net. Very cool....

http://gizmodo.com/5843884/when-you-dro ... like-magic

r6

Code: Select all

Rr6---The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as an individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slinky+ ... 8&oe=utf-8
So now we have these slinky-like toroidal shapes, however, they are only the spiral surface arcs of gravity and dark energy.
However, even tho my 3, 6, 9 numerical patter defines a sine-wave-like topological frequency, there exist a key differrence in this sine-wave is created vs what classically think of a way that any particles sine-wave-frequency is created.
The sine-wave-- our observed time/reality ---ergo any particle of Universe--- except for maybe gravity and dark energy ---is created from two diametric opposite places.
Gravity > < dark energy

r6

Would you make a seeming psychological stretch and correlate gravity and dark energy to pleasure and pain?

[Sy Borg]

Would you make a seeming psychological stretch and correlate gravity and dark energy to pleasure and pain?

Symbolically. When we are happy we tend to be outward-looking and when we are in pain we retreat inwards.

[Rr6]

Rr6--Found this slinky physics gem on the net. Very cool....
http://gizmodo.com/5843884/when-you-dro ... like-magic
Rr6---The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as an individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

Greta{?}--Would you make a seeming psychological stretch and correlate gravity and dark energy to pleasure and pain?

I feel that pleasure and pain are states of consciousness ergo physical properties and less psyche or mental or mind/intellect/concept. Mind is just the terminology used for feelings of pain and pleasure.

Does psyche/mind have and effect? Yes, because concepts stem from consciousness so placebo effect, that occurs 10% of time in lab experiments, stems from consciousness ergo feelings.

If there exists a rational, logical common sense pathway to such i.e. to do so, I might.

Dualistic opposites alone is not a rational, logical common sense pathway on its own, tho, that correlation/association exists. Ex convex -(- concave is not part of a unitary whole where a diameter of a circle (--), or square [--], or triangle \--/ is.

Diametric opposites may have more differrential context than a more simple dualism, in that one is correlate to unitary, spatial/geometric whole, the other may less so. All has to be reference to occupied space, irrespective of scale of size. imho

Once I found slinkys are still being made, I found some other slinky cuties on the net, ex;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PFayE0-aN0

and this next one is much larger cosmic context;

https://vimeo.com/42151092

Again, my toroidal tube concepts have inversions > < as physical/energy body of toroidal tube. The inversions occur at lateral peaks of positive shape and negative shape, as tho there is some limit, and the gravitational and dark energy react by inversion.

The top and bottom of torus is the transition zone--- flat ---between positive and negative curvature. When I first began to understand this, Ive been pondering every since and consider some various geometric idea, but without graphic abilities I'm limited to my conceptual abilities only.

..............top..................top...
.peak +..(...)..-.peak -...(....)..+ peak
.........bottom..............bottom

r8

[Aristocles]

Rr6--Found this slinky physics gem on the net. Very cool....
http://gizmodo.com/5843884/when-you-dro ... like-magic
Rr6---The need is to feel included, not exclude i.e. a feeling that we too, irrespective of how minimally insignificant we are as an individual, we want feel we are part of greater unified whole.

Greta{?}--Would you make a seeming psychological stretch and correlate gravity and dark energy to pleasure and pain?

I feel that pleasure and pain are states of consciousness ergo physical properties and less psyche or mental or mind/intellect/concept. Mind is just the terminology used for feelings of pain and pleasure.

Does psyche/mind have and effect? Yes, because concepts stem from consciousness so placebo effect, that occurs 10% of time in lab experiments, stems from consciousness ergo feelings.

If there exists a rational, logical common sense pathway to such i.e. to do so, I might.

Dualistic opposites alone is not a rational, logical common sense pathway on its own, tho, that correlation/association exists. Ex convex -(- concave is not part of a unitary whole where a diameter of a circle (--), or square [--], or triangle \--/ is.

Diametric opposites may have more differrential context than a more simple dualism, in that one is correlate to unitary, spatial/geometric whole, the other may less so. All has to be reference to occupied space, irrespective of scale of size. imho

Once I found slinkys are still being made, I found some other slinky cuties on the net, ex;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PFayE0-aN0

and this next one is much larger cosmic context;

https://vimeo.com/42151092

Again, my toroidal tube concepts have inversions > < as physical/energy body of toroidal tube. The inversions occur at lateral peaks of positive shape and negative shape, as tho there is some limit, and the gravitational and dark energy react by inversion.

The top and bottom of torus is the transition zone--- flat ---between positive and negative curvature. When I first began to understand this, Ive been pondering every since and consider some various geometric idea, but without graphic abilities I'm limited to my conceptual abilities only.

..............top..................top...
.peak +..(...)..-.peak -...(....)..+ peak
.........bottom..............bottom

r8

Trying to remain germane to the topic, still searching for a form of dualistic, holistic monism, etc, as a realistic form of some kind of seeming panpsychism. It appears the more we use our symbols (words, diagrams, etc) to unify, the more we spiral out in chaos. Nevertheless, the desire for predictability is interesting, and appears worth exploration, to a point.